toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

13520 discussions

Snapmirror problem after upgrade
by David McWilliams 21 Feb '08

21 Feb '08

I just upgraded a FAS250 from 7.0 to 7.2.4. After the upgrade in Filerview under Snapmirror, the option "Manage" is gone. All other options are there, Configure, Report, Add etc. From the command line, everything is there. The snapmirrors are working. I just do not have the option to Manage them in Filerview. Has anyone seen this at 7.2.4? -- Sláinte, David Get a safer, faster, better web browser @ http://www.mozilla.org/products/firefox/

10 11

filer locks on oracle DB
by Willeke, Jochen 18 Feb '08

18 Feb '08

Hello toasters, we have a problem with some of our oracle databases (LINUX, NFS on Filers). Sometimes when the database crashes, we have locks left on the filer. Currently we use "priv set diag; lock status -f" to check for those locks. And with "priv set diag; sm_mon -l [servername]" we can delete all locks for a specific server. But this is a problem, if one server hosts more DB's than one. Is there any possibility to find out which locks are the blocking ones and delete only those? Does anyone have the same problem and has an interesting solution to that?!? Best Regards and thanks in advance Jochen -- Wincor Nixdorf International GmbH Sitz der Gesellschaft: Paderborn Registergericht Paderborn HRB 3507 Gesch�ftsf�hrer: Eckard Heidloff (Vorsitzender), Stefan Auerbach, Dr. J�rgen Wunram Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats: Karl-Heinz Stiller Steuernummer: 339/5884/0020 - Ust-ID Nr.: DE812927716 - WEEE-Reg.-Nr. DE44477193 Diese E-Mail enth�lt vertrauliche Informationen. Wenn Sie nicht der richtige Adressat sind oder diese E-Mail irrt�mlich erhalten haben, informieren Sie bitte sofort den Absender und vernichten Sie diese E-Mail. Das unerlaubte Kopieren sowie die unbefugte Weitergabe dieser E-Mail ist nicht gestattet. This e-mail may contain confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient (or have received this e-mail in error) please notify the sender immediately and destroy this e-mail. Any unauthorised copying, disclosure or distribution of the material in this e-mail is strictly forbidden.

4 5

Lun destroy does not free up vol free space
by Kevin Parker 15 Feb '08

15 Feb '08

Toasters: Vol size is 1024GB. It had 4 vmware type luns of 240gb each taking the vol to 100% used. Now need to SIS the volumes so can't do 100% used. Lun offline/destroy 1 lun (didnt need it) and expected to see free space in volume show up. However after 2 minutes it DID go to 70%, but now back to 100% used still. No vol or aggr snapshots exist. Sis enabled still but failing due to being full. May try to turn it off to see if it will unjar the free block space. Any ideas why lun destroy wouldn't provide more free space from a df? I'm sure I'm missing something amazingly simple. 3020C(a)7.2.3 TIA! **Sent using wireless handheld... please excuse any typo's or brevity** Kevin Parker - NWN Corporation kparker(a)nwnit.com (m) 919.830.5819 (o) 919.653.4489 Note: This message and any attachments is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is non-public, proprietary, legally privileged, confidential, and/or exempt from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the original sender immediately by telephone or return email and destroy or delete this message along with any attachments immediately.

2 1

De-dup'ing Primary Storage
by Bill Holland 15 Feb '08

15 Feb '08

To those of you that have implemented Nearstore and A-SIS on your primary storage: 1. Have you seen any difference in overall filer performance? 2. If you have LUNs, how are your space savings on those volumes? I know that enabling Nearstore does some system tweaking in the background to increase the number of concurrent backup streams that can be running, but I don't know what else it tweaks that may adversely affect performance of a primary storage system. Afterall, it was originally designed to run as a secondary storage platform.

8 10

Re: De-dup'ing Primary Storage
by Jack Lyons 14 Feb '08

14 Feb '08

Ditto. We are seeing ~65% savings on vmware luns....serving about 60 luns. no performance impacts during the day slight (~3%) when actually deduping. Jack Glenn Dekhayser wrote: > > I have a client de-duping ~15 iSCSI LUNs in the same volume (vmware c: > drives), getting great data reduction, with no perceivable performance > impact. > > > > -Glenn (the other one) > > > > *From:* owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com > [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] *On Behalf Of *Willeke, Jochen > *Sent:* Wednesday, February 13, 2008 8:01 AM > *To:* Bill Holland; toasters(a)mathworks.com > *Subject:* RE: De-dup'ing Primary Storage > > > > Hi Bill, > > > > we have ASIS on two of our 6070's for some time. We did only few tests > but could not see any direct impact on the filers performance. > > We have not yet used it for LUNs so far, but would be interessted in > experience with ASIS on LUNs as well. > > > > Regards > > > > Jochen > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > *From:* owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com > [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] *On Behalf Of *Bill Holland > *Sent:* Wednesday, February 13, 2008 12:50 PM > *To:* toasters(a)mathworks.com > *Subject:* De-dup'ing Primary Storage > > To those of you that have implemented Nearstore and A-SIS on your > primary storage: > > > > 1. Have you seen any difference in overall filer performance? > > 2. If you have LUNs, how are your space savings on those volumes? > > > > I know that enabling Nearstore does some system tweaking in the > background to increase the number of concurrent backup streams that > can be running, but I don't know what else it tweaks that may > adversely affect performance of a primary storage system. Afterall, > it was originally designed to run as a secondary storage platform. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Wincor Nixdorf International GmbH > Sitz der Gesellschaft: Paderborn > Registergericht Paderborn HRB 3507 > Geschftsfhrer: Eckard Heidloff (Vorsitzender), Stefan Auerbach, Dr. > Jrgen Wunram > Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats: Karl-Heinz Stiller > Steuernummer: 339/5884/0020 - Ust-ID Nr.: DE812927716 - WEEE-Reg.-Nr. > DE44477193 > > Diese E-Mail enthlt vertrauliche Informationen. Wenn Sie nicht der > richtige Adressat sind oder diese E-Mail irrtmlich erhalten haben, > informieren Sie bitte sofort den Absender und vernichten Sie diese > E-Mail. Das unerlaubte Kopieren sowie die unbefugte Weitergabe dieser > E-Mail ist nicht gestattet. > > This e-mail may contain confidential information. If you are not the > intended recipient (or have received this e-mail in error) please > notify the sender immediately and destroy this e-mail. Any > unauthorised copying, disclosure or distribution of the material in > this e-mail is strictly forbidden. >

1 0

Fibre vs. copper cabling for FAS3040
by Adam McDougall 13 Feb '08

13 Feb '08

We recently received a cluster of FAS3040, and due to some ordering confusion, ended up with no copper shelf interconnects but an excess of fibre cables + SFP modules. We have 4 DS14MK2 FC shelves and one DS14MK2 AT shelf to attach. I will probably obtain the copper shelf interconnects that I am supposed to have, but in the meantime, would it work good enough for testing using all optical fibre cables and no copper? Is this a supported configuration? Would it be unrecommended and how strongly? I'd have to assume it is a more costly situation than using copper interconnects. I just haven't had time to contact the right people to get this situated yet.

3 2

NDMP backup failures due to low disk space on vol?
by Paul Keating 12 Feb '08

12 Feb '08

I've got a large volume that's running low on space and a full NDMP backup has failed a couple times. Netbackup is throwing a Status code 99. it appears that about 100% of the data is backed up and it fails during some post processing phase. I can't seem to find anything obvious other than the lack of free space on the vol. Is there some clean up activity that runs post backup that could fail due to lack of free space? Thanks, Paul ==================================================================================== La version française suit le texte anglais. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This email may contain privileged and/or confidential information, and the Bank of Canada does not waive any related rights. Any distribution, use, or copying of this email or the information it contains by other than the intended recipient is unauthorized. If you received this email in error please delete it immediately from your system and notify the sender promptly by email that you have done so. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Le présent courriel peut contenir de l'information privilégiée ou confidentielle. La Banque du Canada ne renonce pas aux droits qui s'y rapportent. Toute diffusion, utilisation ou copie de ce courriel ou des renseignements qu'il contient par une personne autre que le ou les destinataires désignés est interdite. Si vous recevez ce courriel par erreur, veuillez le supprimer immédiatement et envoyer sans délai à l'expéditeur un message électronique pour l'aviser que vous avez éliminé de votre ordinateur toute copie du courriel reçu.

2 1

rsh access ports
by Robert K. Borowicz 11 Feb '08

11 Feb '08

Hi Toasters, I'm bringing up a new 3020 filer where the Admin Host (unix) is on a separate subnet. I didn't have port connectivity to the subnet past a router and had the network guy open up the access-list. Afterward, I was able to mount "vol0" but I can't do a: filer->traceroute admin-host Nor does "rsh filer version" work from the admin host, I'm getting the following on the filer's messages file: Mon Feb 11 19:24:58 GMT [rshd_0:info]: couldn't connect second port on admin-host(a)domain.com I'm thinking networks didn't open *all* ports between filer subnet and admin hosts subnet. I'm verifying with them now. I did configure ssh keys on the admin host (solaris 10) and am getting this upon ssh'ing into the filer: Mon Feb 11 19:43:16 GMT [openssh.invalid.channel.req:warning]: SSH client (SSH-2.0-Sun_SSH_1.1) from {admin-host ip supressed} sent unsupported channel request (10, env) I'm beginning my NOW research, but was hoping somebody has already seen this. Thanks -Rob Admin Host: Solaris 10 Filer: DOT 7.2.3

3 2

UnionFS on NetApp
by Sebastien Campion 11 Feb '08

11 Feb '08

Hi, i would like to known if it's possible to merge volume like unionfs merge mount point to increase volume size ? Is it possible ? I'm using a Data ONTAP Release 7.2.2. Sébastien.

1 0

IBM SAN Volume Controller
by David McWilliams 11 Feb '08

11 Feb '08

I'm currently on 6.5.6. Does anyone know what version of ONTAP support the IBM SAN Volume Controller? -- Sláinte, David Get a safer, faster, better web browser @ http://www.mozilla.org/products/firefox/

2 1

Jump to page:

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000

1999

1998

1997

toasters